Aletho News


Fauci follows Wiki co-founder, ‘death panels’ inventor, warmonger Blair & WEF creator as winner of Israeli prize

By Helen Buyniski | RT | February 18, 2021

US corona czar Dr. Anthony Fauci has been awarded the Dan David Prize for “defending science in the face of uninformed opposition,” joining a rogues gallery of former winners including Jimmy Wales and Tony Blair.

The Dan David Foundation, which is based out of Tel Aviv University and counts such dubious luminaries as war criminal Henry Kissinger on its board of directors, has gifted $1 million to Fauci for “courageously defending science in the face of uninformed opposition during the challenging Covid crisis.”

It’s not clear from whence this “uninformed opposition” emerged – indeed, one of Fauci’s most vocal opponents has been Dr. Anthony Fauci, who spoke up against the wearing of face masks and other mandates just weeks before he came out swinging in support of such rules.

Presumably, though, the Dan David Foundation was referring to popular opposition to that version of science that more closely resembles religious dogma. Fauci’s smug, self-satisfied and above all brittle variant of “science” cannot be questioned, lest it shatter into a million pieces, and the man’s stubborn use of thought-terminating clichés makes him resemble more of a cult leader than a public health official.

The Dan David Foundation has quite a history of honoring dodgy figures, and it’s no surprise to find them promoting dogmatic Fauci-flavored science over the true scientific method. Wikipedia co-founder and famed fabulist Jimmy Wales was among its prize-winners in 2015, gifted the $1 million treasure for his work in the field of “the Information Revolution.”

While Wales generally defends his truth-averse creation by waxing poetic about a world “in which every person is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge,” Wikipedia has instead mounted a full frontal assault on human knowledge, seeking to destroy all that which does not conform to its founder’s preferred version of reality. Despite presenting itself as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia even admits it does not traffic in “truth,” but merely “verifiability,” and the site’s disclaimer notes “that nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by people with the expertise required to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information.”

Fauci is in good company at the Dan David Foundation. Just as the good doctor has done for Big Pharma fraudsters like Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline, Wales has taken great care to treat Israel and the many “alternative facts” with which it shrouds its own crimes with kid gloves, ensuring the average Wikipedia user doesn’t learn the truth about the horrific oppression Tel Aviv deals out to occupied Palestine on a daily basis.

The Israeli government and its private-sector collaborators have long operated ideologically-driven editing cells, a massive violation of Wikipedia’s rules but one whose owners straight-facedly describe as merely an effort to make Wikipedia “balanced and Zionist in nature.” Many of the Israelis who operate these editing initiatives receive valuable rewards from their government, and some even rise to plum positions therein – Ayelet Shaked became the Israeli Minister of Justice after putting together the pro-(illegal)-settlement Yesha Council’s editing initiative, and Naftali Bennett rose to Education Minister not long after serving in that same organization.

As a Dan David Foundation winner, Fauci will also be mingling with Ezekiel Emanuel, the oncologist who infamously devised the notion of rationing healthcare – “death panels” – and suggested humans should aspire to live to no more than 75 years of age. He won the prize in 2018 for his work as “pioneer in the field of end-of-life care.” You can’t make this stuff up.

Speaking of “end-of-life care,” the Foundation also counted Tony Blair, the former UK PM who joined US President George W. Bush in his illegal and monstrous assault on Iraq, among its winners in 2009. Blair’s bio deems him “one of the most outstanding statesmen of our era,” presumably with a straight face. In his post-PM career, Blair has traveled around giving expensive speeches to repressive dictators and counseling them on how best to extract themselves from pesky human rights charges (see: KazakhstanAzerbaijanUAE and Israel itself), while Wales follows him around like a lovesick puppy, setting up Wikipedia projects for aforementioned dictators. After all, nothing says “democratic” like a “people’s encyclopedia” run like a Ministry of Truth!

And what gathering of ruling class ghouls would be complete without the World Economic Forum’s Klaus Schwab? The real-life Bond villain won the Dan David Prize in 2004 for “his significant contribution in fostering international dialogue and activism to resolve some of the world’s greatest issues.” So what if the corporations that comprise his little organization caused a whole bunch more “issues” in the mean time? Can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs!

As a central figure in the US medical establishment for four decades who’s personally presided over the declining life expectancy of its people, Fauci fits perfectly into the malevolent ruling class soup cooked up by the Dan David Foundation. Wikipedia made a formal alliance with the World Health Organization last year, supposedly part of an effort to fight “disinformation” related to the novel coronavirus epidemic, and Wales has long considered his website a prize weapon in the armory of modern medicine against what he calls “lunatic charlatans” – those medical practitioners who dare to dream that cures may exist outside the money-paved halls of Big Pharma.

And Fauci himself is a true believer in the wide world of orthodox pharmaceutical treatments, unwilling to concede any validity on the part of natural medicine and determined to come out of the Covid-19 pandemic looking good – no matter how many people have to die for his public relations campaign.

In reality, Fauci has done a substandard job throughout his tenure, whether it was denying access to a potentially lifesaving antibacterial drug that could have saved the lives of AIDS patients infected with a killer variant of pneumonia or pushing a dangerous swine flu vaccine for an epidemic that turned out to be largely imaginary. Unfortunately for all of humanity subject to his policymaking decisions, he’ll fit right in with Kissinger and his sorry array of pals.

Helen Buyniski is an American journalist and political commentator at RT. Follow her on Telegram

February 18, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | 3 Comments

Yes, the NY Times exposed the PCR test

By Jon Rappoport | No More Fake News | February 18, 2021

As I’ve been telling readers for many months, even if you assume SARS-CoV-2 is real, the test is useful, and the case and death numbers are meaningful, there are vast and crippling internal contradictions within the official portrait of COVID-19.

Currently, I’m focusing on the PCR test and its fatal flaws.

The test is a MAJOR weak point in the enemy’s attack on humanity. If the test falls, the case and death numbers are shown to be wildly false, and the whole pandemic narrative collapses.

I urge readers to spread this information far and wide.

On August 29, 2020, the New York Times published a long article headlined, Your coronavirus test is positive. Maybe it shouldn’t be.” [1] [2]

Its main message? “The standard [COVID PCR] tests are diagnosing huge numbers of people who may be carrying relatively insignificant amounts of the virus…Most of these people are not likely to be contagious…”

“In three sets of testing data… compiled by officials in Massachusetts, New York and Nevada, up to 90 percent of people testing positive carried barely any virus, a review by The Times found.”

“On Thursday, the United States recorded 45,604 new coronavirus cases, according to a database maintained by The Times. If the rates of contagiousness in Massachusetts and New York were to apply nationwide, then perhaps only 4,500 of those people may actually need to isolate and submit to contact tracing.”

TAKEAWAY from The Times : Up to 90% of ALL people who have been labeled “COVID cases” are not COVID cases. This fact would downgrade the pandemic to “just another flu season.” And there would be no reason for lockdowns.

Of course, the Times goes on to say the solution to this problem is MORE TESTING. Only a moron would accept that notion.

The enduring message of their article still stands: the PCR test apparatus is a fraud, through and through. It enables the recording of monumentally false case numbers, which are used to declare unnecessary lockdowns and wall-to-wall economic destruction.

Make the truth known.




February 18, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | | 1 Comment

New York Waitress FIRED For Not Getting Covid Jab

By Richie Allen | February 18, 2021

A New York City waitress was sacked on Monday, after telling her employer that she had concerns about the safety of coronavirus vaccines and would rather wait until more was known about the jabs.

Bonnie Jacobson from Brooklyn said that her manager at Red Hook Tavern fired her a few days after she had expressed concern about how the vaccine affects fertility. She had been working at the tavern since August and she and her husband had been planning to have a baby. Speaking to NBC News yesterday, Bonnie said:

“I do support the vaccine. I’m not, as they say, an anti-vaxxer.”

She went on to say that she feels there is still a lack of research about how the vaccine affects pregnant women. She said her manager understood her concerns and assured her that the tavern wouldn’t be requiring staff to have the jab. A few days later, workers received an email which stated that the vaccines would be mandatory for all staff. NBC has seen the email:

“Please be advised that we will require that all employees receive the vaccination. This will be mandatory for all existing employees and any new hires. The exception to this policy will be if your own personal health or disability prohibits you from obtaining this vaccination. We encourage you to consult your healthcare professional to determine if getting a vaccine is right for you.”

Jacobson replied:

“While I fully support the vaccine and understand its importance I do believe this is a very personal choice. I really hope this choice would not affect my employment at Red Hook Tavern. Also once there is more research to support that it does not affect fertility I would reconsider my position.”

Two days later, she was fired.

“It was really impersonal. I was honestly shocked,” she told NBC. “My gut reaction was to just say, OK. Fine, I’ll get it. I need my job. But that just didn’t sit right with me. I was like, actually, I don’t think that’s right. I don’t think that’s the choice I need to be making here.”

The owner of Red Hook Tavern, Billy Durney, released a statement saying:

“Once New York state allowed restaurant workers to receive the Covid-19 vaccine, we thought this was the perfect opportunity to put a plan in place to keep our team and guests safe. No one has faced these challenges before and we made a decision that we thought would best protect everyone. We now realize that we need to update our policy so it’s clear to our team how the process works and what we can do to support them. We’re making these changes immediately.”

February 18, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , , | 3 Comments

Biden Administration Sending Emergency Diesel Generators to Texas

By Eric Worrall | Watts Up With That? | February 18, 2021

If you were expecting [proclaimed] President Biden to ship emergency solar panels to Texas, you were wrong. Looks like when renewable energy fails, as it did in Texas, even the Biden administration turns to more reliable forms of energy.

Biden administration sending generators to Texas amid power outages

Ursula Perano | February 18, 2021

… White House press secretary Jen Psaki said at a briefing on Wednesday that the Biden administration is sending emergency generators to Texas amid ongoing power outages and freezing weather.

Why it matters: Huge swaths of Texas have been without electricity for days due to critical failures in the state’s power grid. The outages come while a winter storm continues to pummel the state, causing unsafe conditions and a desperate need for heat. … Read more

Click here to see a video of Jen Psaki explaining the plan to send diesel generators to Texas and other states likely to be affected by winter storms.

Even if a storm like this only happens every 20 years, going 100% renewable is clearly now unacceptable. People who rely on electricity for heating are in deadly danger, if the only source of power is renewable energy, and the renewable energy systems freeze solid during severe ice storms.

If the plan is to maintain enough diesel backup to keep the lights on when renewables fail, renewables will never be affordable. Consumers will be saddled with the expense of maintaining the renewable infrastructure, and the additional expense of maintaining a complete second set of power infrastructure at operational readiness, ready to switch on when the renewables fail.

February 18, 2021 Posted by | Economics, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity | 3 Comments

Midwest Have No Surplus Power For Texas

By Paul Homewood | Not A Lot Of People Know That | February 18, 2021

Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO)


It is claimed that Texas would be better off as part of a wider grid. The obvious one would be MISO, to which there is already a small interconnector.

However MISO has been having severe difficulties due to the cold spell:


As with Texas,  MISO is currently relying almost entirely on coal, gas and nuclear power. If they had been operating with a quarter of the power from wind, as Texas was last week,  I suspect that they would have been experiencing the same blackouts as Texas has had.


It is also not much bigger capacity wise than Texas, which has been running at around 60 GW this week. I suspect that any extra demand from Texas would quickly destabilise the MISO grid.

There is an interesting backstory to this.


The Natural Resources Defense Council says the Midwest energy grid operator known as MISO hasn’t planned enough interstate transmission lines.

MISO manages the system of utilities and transmission lines that operate in a wide region, from Manitoba, Canada to Louisiana.

John Moore is a senior attorney with the Council.  He says MISO for too long has approved numerous local transmission projects, but only a tiny number of interstate transmission lines – which operate much like interstate highways, moving energy, rather than vehicles,  from state to state.

He says MISO needs to plan more aggressively to meet the economic and environmental needs of the region.

“If we let business as usual take its course, then MISO may not be as bold as it needs to be,” he says.

Moore says the lack of interstate transmission capacity is leaving clean energy projects on the table.

That includes 42 clean energy proposals in Michigan since 2016 that were unable to proceed, because the existing transmission system couldn’t handle them.

Installing more wind power inevitably means more long distance transmission capacity is needed. The unpredictability of wind power results in huge surpluses at times, which require transmitting to areas short of power. This could often be over distances of hundreds of miles.

Since that is the case, surely it is a cost that wind farms should be paying, something that would probably make them totally unviable economically.

February 18, 2021 Posted by | Economics, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Science and Pseudo-Science | | Leave a comment

Why I Am a Climate Realist

By Vijay Jayaraj | Watts Up With That? | February 18, 2021

In 2008, I was in my early 20s and about to complete my undergraduate degree in engineering. Despite being in a remote part of Asia with no Internet facility—except for the Internet cafes—the news surrounding global warming still managed to reach most of us.

Being an ardent lover of the environment and passionate about conservation, I decided to pursue a career in environmental sciences, especially given the “rising problem” of global warming.

Al Gore’s 2006 climate documentary An Inconvenient Truth made global warming an extremely popular topic in those years all over the world.

Like millions of others, I trusted Gore’s predictions. I had no reason to doubt them. The thought of global climate doomsday and the call to avert it struck a chord with my passion for nature and conservation.

Hence, I pursued my graduate studies at one of the world’s leading universities for climate studies, the University of East Anglia in the UK. The Climatic Research Unit (CRU) there is responsible—along with the Hadley Centre—for developing global temperature datasets, known as HadCRUT datasets.

But my perceptions about global warming and the science surrounding it were about to be shaken. As I was attending one of my lectures, we received an email from the University asking us to change our email passwords immediately.

A week later that I understood that the University’s email system had been breached, and email content scientists from the CRU leaked to the public. The event is infamously known as “Climategate.”

It took me a few more years before I completely understood the implications of that email leak. Email exchanges between scientists from the CRU and other universities revealed a deliberate attempt to exaggerate the present warming and make it appear unprecedented.

Ross McKitrick in “Understanding the Climategate Inquiries” showed how the evidence proves that “The scientists involved in the email exchanges manipulated evidence in IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] and WMO [World Meteorological Organization] reports with the effect of misleading readers, including policymakers.”

Besides, upon foreseeing inquiries coming their way, “The scientists took steps individually or in collusion to block access to data or methodologies in order to prevent external examination of their work.”

McKitrick noted that Phil Jones—one of the scientists from CRU—admitted to deleting emails, in a likely attempt to prevent disclosure of information subject to freedom of information laws, and had asked his colleagues to do the same.

Numerous enquiries and boards investigated the leak and declared the scientists not guilty. In two detailed, assiduously documented book-length analyses, Andrew Montford, author of the climate books Hiding the Decline and The Hockey Stick Illusion, summarized his findings in a shorter paper: “the inquiries into the conduct and integrity of scientists at the Climatic Research Unit were rushed, cursory and largely unpersuasive.”

Commenting on Climategate, Andrew Turnbull, who served as the Permanent Secretary of Environment Department (1994–1998) and Permanent Secretary to the Treasury (1998–2002) in the United Kingdom, said, “Only if the integrity of the science is reestablished and the strengths and weaknesses of the main propositions are acknowledged will there be the basis of trust with the public that policymakers need.”

But that integrity was never reestablished.

For example, the work of the very same scientists involved in climategate is treated as the ultimate standard of climate science. Some of them, like Michael Mann, are among the most influential people in the IPCC and chart the climate blueprint for policymakers, whose policies then are implemented in many nations.

The Climategate episode certainly made me question whether the global warming was as dangerous as it is made up to be.

The answer to my question trickled in slowly over a number of years. Evidence began to emerge that scientists acknowledged a large gap between the actual observed real-world temperature datasets (from satellites) and those temperature predictions from computer climate models.

While these differences may not prove the allegations against the Climategate scientists, they do confirm us about one thing: the computer climate models exaggerate the future warming rate due to their high sensitivity to carbon dioxide emissions. As a result, the models continue to show an excessive and unreal warming rate for future decades.

Despite plenty of evidence, the IPCC continues to use these faulty model predictions to inform the public and policymakers about future changes in temperature.

A steady stream of scientific studies has documented the evidence for lack of dangerous warming—IPCC’s level of warming based on fifth- and sixth-generation (CMIP5 and CMIP6) models and the apparent absence of climate-induced ecological collapse.

In 2020 alone, over 400 peer-reviewed scientific papers took up a skeptical position on climate alarmism. These papers—and hundreds from previous years—address various issues related to climate change, including problems with climate change observation, climate reconstructions, lack of anthropogenic/CO2 signal in sea-level rise, natural mechanisms that drive climate change (solar influence on climate, ocean circulations, cloud climate influence, ice sheet melting in high geothermal heat flux areas), hydrological trends that do not follow modeled expectations, the fact that corals thrive in warm, high-CO2 environments, elevated CO2 and higher crop yields, no increasing trends in intense hurricanes and drought frequency, the myth of mass extinctions due to global cooling, etc.

Academia is filled with scientific literature that contradicts the position of those who believe climate change is unprecedented.

Also, during the course of the last decade, it became apparent that most of Al Gore’s claims in his 2006 documentary were false. Contrary to his claims, polar bear populations remained steady, the Arctic did not become ice free during the summer of 2014, and storms did not get stronger due to global warming.

In simple words, Gore misled the world and promoted falsehood as science, and he continues to do so while profiting from a renewable industry that is sold as the cure for global warming. Yet, he himself generates carbon dioxide emissions and many times higher than an average family’s.

So, not only are the predictions of models are wrong, but also the interpretations of climate data and the propaganda of a climate doomsday were also wrong.

Today, we know the modern warming rate is not unprecedented. Warming of such magnitude has happened twice within the past 2000 years. Further, ice at both poles is at historic highs, even compared with the Little Ice Age of the 17th century.

Besides, there has been no increase in extreme weather events due to climate change and the loss of lives due to environmental disasters has drastically reduced during the last 100 years.

So, I am a climate realist. I acknowledge that there has been a gradual increase in global average temperature since the end of the Little Ice Age in the 17th century. I acknowledge that climate change can happen in both ways—warming and cooling. I do understand that anthropogenic CO2 emissions and other greenhouse gases could have positively contributed to the warming from mid-20th century onwards.

I also acknowledge that warming and the increased atmospheric carbon dioxide that has contributed to it have actually helped society. The current atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, nearly 50 percent higher than in the 17th century, and the warming—which has occurred chiefly in winter, in higher latitudes and altitudes, and at night, thus raising cold temperatures but with little effect on hot temperatures—have actually resulted in optimal conditions for global plant growth, thus aiding in the flourishing of the agricultural sector.

The Bengal tiger populations have bounced back, and polar bear populations are steady, thanks to conservation efforts. Forest area in Europe is increasing every year, and countries are planting tree saplings at a record rate. Life expectancy has reached all-time highs in many countries, and more people are constantly pulled out of extreme poverty every year (although business lockdowns to fight COVID-19 threaten to reverse that trend). Access to freshwater has improved and human productivity has increased drastically.

So, there is no actual climate emergency. Instead, what we have celebrities, activists, un-elected political bodies like the UN, and even some climate scientists religiously promoting a popular doomsday belief.

The models do not know the future, and neither do the Climategate scientists. But an exaggerated view of future warming provides the ideal background for anti-carbon-based fuels policies that will undermine the economic well-being of every society in the world. We must not allow that.

Be a climate realist.

Vijay Jayaraj (M.Sc., Environmental Science, University of East Anglia, England), is a Research Contributor for the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation and resides in New Delhi, India.

February 18, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment

Climate Facts or Leaps of Faith? Governments Can’t Tell the Difference

We have no hard evidence of a crisis. Only expert opinion and best estimates.

By Donna Laframboise | Big Picture News | February 17, 2021

Governments are currently fighting climate change to the tune of billions. For this to make sense, each idea in the following chain of reasoning needs to be bulletproof:

#1 – scientists know there’s a climate crisis
#2 – scientists know it’s humanity’s fault
#3 – scientists know we can alleviate the crisis by changing our behaviour

But each of these amounts to a leap of faith. Let’s start with the conviction that something unusual is going on. This planet is more than 4 billion years old. The climate was marching to its own drummer long before humans appeared. It has changed numerous times – sometimes gradually, sometimes violently. Twenty thousand years ago, much of North America was covered by ice.

Because humans weren’t recording and analyzing those billions of years of climatic history, today’s scientists have no way of knowing if anything unusual is going on now.

They can surmise. They can speculate. They can extrapolate. But they have no smoking gun. I’ve written two books about the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). That organization says it’s “extremely likely that more than half” of the global warming between 1951 and 2010 was caused by human activity. It talks about its “best estimate.”

click to enlarge; source here

Please note the startling imprecision here: Extremely likely. More than half. Best estimate. These aren’t facts. They’re educated guesses. They’re opinion. It’s absolutely crucial that we grasp this point: the IPCC has no hard evidence of a crisis. It has no math that can be examined and verified. It has only expert opinion. Estimates.

If you choose to take this leap of faith, you’re immediately invited to take another – to embrace the notion that the alleged climate crisis was triggered by human activity. As I’ve just outlined, the IPCC can’t prove this. It merely believes humans caused more than half of the warming over a 60-year period. That’s a long way from demonstrating clear human responsibility for imminent catastrophe.

On these two decisive questions – is there really a climate problem, and are humans really to blame – the IPCC has nothing definitive to contribute. Governments have, nevertheless, taken these leaps of faith.

Everyone seems to have forgotten that scientists are fallible. Like the rest of us, they know a great deal about their own field, but can be surprisingly misinformed about broader trends. Like the rest of us, they are susceptible to groupthink. Many IPCC personnel subscribe to a belief system that regards human activities as unnatural and therefore automatically threatening to the natural world. But belief systems are not proof.

Leap of faith #3 – the idea that humanity can fix whatever is currently going on with the climate – is equally dubious. Even if something alarming is happening, even if it is our fault, that doesn’t mean it lies within our power to influence, interrupt, or steer the powerful natural forces that have already been set in motion. It certainly doesn’t mean there’s only one sure-fire, anointed fix – slashing greenhouse gas emissions.

Governments are obsessed with greenhouse gases because they signed a UN treaty back in 1992. Long before the IPCC had produced its multi-thousand-page reports the cart was put before the horse. The UN – a political body – decreed that human-generated emissions were a problem that governments should do something about. The IPCC has struggled ever since to build a scientific case in support of that position.

No one actually knows whether reducing emissions will work. No one knows how long it might take to ‘stabilize’ the climate via this means. Yet governments are piling on the carbon taxes. Year after year, they divert billions away from healthcare and education to fight climate change with ever-expanding emissions reduction policies.

In 1992, the UK was led by John Major, Germany was led by Helmut Kohl, America was led by George H.W. Bush, and France was led by Francois Mitterrand. The Internet barely existed in 1992, the founding of Google was still years away.

That treaty belongs to a different era. There is no shame in walking away from outdated, 30-year-old thinking.

February 18, 2021 Posted by | Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment

The Decline of the West: American Education Surrenders to ‘Equity’

By Philip Giraldi | Strategic Culture Foundation | February 18, 2021

Public education in the United States, if measured by results, has been producing graduates that are less competent in language skills and dramatically less well taught in the sciences and mathematics since 1964, when Scholastic Aptitude Test scores peaked. The decline in science and math skills has accelerated in the past decade according to rankings of American students compared to their peers overseas. A recent assessment, from 2015, placed the U.S. at 38th out of 71 countries in math and 24th in science. Among the 35 members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development OECD), the United States came in at 30th in math and 19th in science. Those poor results must be placed in a context of American taxpayers spending more money per student than any other country in the world, so the availability of resources is not necessarily a factor in most school districts.

Much of the decline is due to technical advances that level the playing field for teachers worldwide, but one must also consider changing perceptions of the role of education in a social context. In the United States in particular, political and cultural unrest certainly have been relevant factors. But all of that said and considered, the U.S. is now confronting a reassessment of values that will likely alter forever traditional education and will also make American students even more non-competitive with their foreign peers.

Many schools in the United States have ceased issuing grades that have any meaning, or they have dropped grading altogether, which means there is no way to judge progress or achievement. National test scores for evaluating possible college entry are on the way out almost everywhere as they are increasingly being condemned as “racist” in terms of how they assess learning based solely on the fact that blacks do less well on them than Asians and whites. This has all been part of an agenda that is being pushed that will search for and eliminate any taint of racism in the public space. It has also meant the destruction or removal of numerous historic monuments and an avoidance of any honest discussion of American history. San Francisco schools are, for example, notoriously spending more than $1 million to change the names of 44 schools that honor individuals who have been examined under the “racism and oppression” microscope and found wanting. They include George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, and Paul Revere.

The new world order for education is built around the concept of “equity,” sometimes described as using the public education system to “ensure equitable outcomes.” But the concept itself is deeply flawed as the pursuit of equity means treating all Americans unequally to guarantee that everyone that comes out of the schools is the same and has learned the same things. That is, of course, ridiculous and it penalizes the good student to make sure that the bad student is somehow pushed through the system and winds up with the same piece of paper.

And the quality overall of public education will sharply decline. One might reasonably observe that imposition of a totalitarian style “equity” regime based on race will inevitably drive many of the academically better prepared students out of the system. Many of the better teachers will also move to the private academies that will spring up due to parental and student demand. Others will stop teaching altogether when confronted by political correctness at a level that prior to 2020 would have seemed unimaginable. The actual quality of education will suffer for everyone involved.

All of that has been bad enough, but the clincher is that this transformation is taking place all over the United States with the encouragement of federal, state and local governments and once the new regime is established it will be difficult or even impossible to go back to a system where learning is actually a discipline that sometimes requires hard work and dedication. In many school districts, the actual process of change is also being put on the back of the taxpayer. In one Virginia county the local school board spent $422,500 on a consultant to apply so-called Critical Race Theory (CRT) to a new program of instruction that will be mandatory for all employees and will serve as the framework for teaching the students. When schools eventually reopen, all kindergarteners, for example, will be taught “social justice” in a course designed by the controversial Southern Poverty Law Center and “diversity training” will be integrated in all other grade levels. Teaching reading, writing and arithmetic will take a back seat of “social justice.”

Critical Race Theory, which is being promoted as the framework for reorganizing the schools along lines of racial preferences, has been fairly criticized as it pretends to be an antidote to systemic racism but is itself racist in nature as it opposes a race neutral system that equally benefits everyone. It proposes that all of America’s governmental bodies and infrastructures are racist and supportive of “white supremacy” and must be deconstructed. It requires everything to be examined through a value system determined by identity politics and race and it views both whites and their institutions as hopelessly corrupted, if not evil.

Fortunately, some pushback to the Jacobins of political correctness is developing. Parents in many school districts are starting to attend school board meetings to register their opposition and even some school board members and teachers are refusing to cooperate. The teachers do so at risk of losing their jobs. At the elite Dalton private school in New York City parents have sent a letter to the Head of School Jim Best complaining how the newly introduced “anti-racist” curriculum has been gravely distorted by Critical Race Theory and the pursuit of “equity” to such an extent that it has included “a pessimistic and age-inappropriate litany of grievances in EVERY class. We have confused a progressive pedagogical model with progressive politics. Even for people who are sympathetic to that political viewpoint, the role of a school is not to indoctrinate politically. It’s to open the minds of children to the wonders of the world and learning. The Dalton we love, that has changed our lives, is nowhere to be found. And that is a huge loss.”

The letter also stated that “Every class this year has had an obsessive focus on race and identity, ‘racist cop’ reenactments in science, ‘decentering whiteness’ in art class, learning about white supremacy and sexuality in health class. Wildly age-inappropriate, many of these classes feel more akin to a Zoom corporate sensitivity training than to Dalton’s intellectually engaging curriculum.”

Ironically, much of the new curriculum is being driven by a core of radicalized Dalton faculty members, who in December signed on to an “anti-racism manifesto” which demanded that the school “hire 12 full-time diversity officers, abolish high-level academic courses if Black students’ performance isn’t on par with White students’, and require anti-racism ‘statements’ from all members of the staff.”

Inevitably what is going on at Dalton and elsewhere is also playing out at many of America’s top universities, so the rot will persist into the next generation when today’s college students themselves become teachers. A black Princeton professor of classics is calling for all classics departments to be done away with because they promote “racism, slavery and white supremacy.” America’s education system, once upon a time, benefited the nation and its people, but we are now watching it in its death throes. And please don’t expect the Joe Biden administration to do anything to save it. They are on the side of the wreckers.

February 18, 2021 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Progressive Hypocrite | , | 1 Comment

Unelected President Kamala Harris?

By Stephen Lendman | February 18, 2021

Harris is substituting for Biden on calls to foreign leaders.

Is she de facto president, Joe Biden a mere figurehead?

Is he too cognitively impaired to fulfill the duties of any public office, let alone the nation’s highest?

Occasional misstatements, mangling of words, and forgetfulness aren’t signs of dementia.

According to Washington insiders willing to speak candidly, Biden is cognitively impaired, his condition worsening over time, likely heading for Alzheimer’s disease.

It’s an advanced stage of dementia that destroys normal memory, thinking and behavior.

Biden appears well on the way to this state.

He forgot lines adolescents know from the Declaration of Independence, jumbling them saying:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident. All men and women are created, by the, you know, you know the thing.”

He momentarily forgot what office he was running for, saying:

“My name’s Joe Biden. I’m a (Dem) candidate for the United States Senate.”

Earlier he said “I think we can win back the House” now controlled by Dems. He called Super Tuesday “Super Thursday.”

Twice he confused Trump with GW Bush as his challenger for the White House.

Time and again, he’s been factually incorrect in explaining what he was involved in earlier, requiring damage control corrections from staff.

He falsely claimed to have worked with China’s Deng Xiaoping on the 2016 Paris Climate Accord. Deng died in 1997.

He falsely claimed that “150 million people have been killed (by guns) since 2007” in the US.

He said Dems should “choose truth over facts.” At times campaigning last year he was unsure what state he was in.

Campaigning in New Hampshire last year, he thought he was in Vermont.

Early last year, he falsely said he was arrested in South Africa for trying to visit Nelson Mandela in prison, what his campaign explained never occurred.

He claimed his tax credit plan will put 720 million US women back to work. He told Iowans “(w)e choose truth over facts.”

He falsely called his late son Beau “attorney general of the United States.”

He confused former UK prime minister Theresa May with Margaret Thatcher.

He mistook the Second Amendment for the First one.

He called Obama “the first African American in the history of the United States.”

He once introduced Obama as his “Barack America” running-mate.

He also called him “the first mainstream African American who is articulate and bright and clean.”

He claimed Franklin Roosevelt appeared on television in 1929, long before it existed.

Last year before chosen as Dem standard bearer, the Washington Post said it’s “fair to ask whether voters are choosing a candidate who’s not up to the job.”

In summer 2019, the Washington Post called him a “gaffe machine.”

Biden earlier had brain surgery twice. According to Science Daily, “(m)ajor surgery is associated with a small long-term decline in cognitive functioning.”

Was running mate Harris chosen as de facto president? Will she formally assume the role when Biden’s cognitive is too impaired to pretend otherwise?

On Wednesday, the New York Post reported that Harris “held her second call with a foreign leader — speaking with French President Emmanuel Macron after a talk earlier this month with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, as well as with World Health Organization Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus in January,” adding:

Harris stressed to Macron “her commitment to strengthening bilateral ties between the United States and France and to revitalizing the transatlantic alliance,” adding:

They “agreed on the need for close bilateral and multilateral cooperation to address covid, climate change, and support democracy at home and around the world (sic),” according to her office’s readout.

“They also discussed numerous regional challenges, including those in the Middle East and Africa, and the need to confront them together.”

She “thanked… Macron for his leadership on the issue of gender equality and for France’s contribution to NASA’s Mars 2020 Perseverance rover.”

On February 1, she and Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau discussed “covid… climate change, and expanding our economic partnership in ways that advance the recovery and create jobs.”

On February 17, AP News said Harris appeared on NBC’s Today show to discuss widespread power outages in Texas that are denying heat and electricity to many state residents during a severe cold snap.

On Tuesday, Reuters reported that “Harris is taking a (significant) foreign policy role” in place of Biden.

On the same day, Fox News said Harris “is proving that she will play an important role in the White House as she hosts calls with foreign leaders without Biden.”

In 2019, former US war secretary Robert Gates questioned whether someone of Biden’s age has the mental and physical ability to serve as president.

Separately last Sunday, GOP Senator Lindsey Graham said if Republicans retake the House in 2023, “I don’t know how Kamala Harris doesn’t get impeached… because she bailed out (BLM) rioters, and one of the rioters went back to the streets and broke somebody’s head open.”

Well before Biden was chosen as Dem standard bearer, it was clear that he’d be a figurehead leader if inaugurated into office — others behind the scenes running things.

After a few weeks in office, Harris may have taken over some of his duties.

Is it just a matter of time before he steps down and she replaces him?

Contact Stephen Lendman at

February 18, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties | | 1 Comment

Pelosi’s 9/11-Type Commission to Give More Powers to US Domestic Spying Apparatus

By Ekaterina Blinova – Sputnik – 18.02.2021

On 15 February, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced plans to form a “9/11-type commission” to probe the Capitol protests. The Dems real aim is to give more powers to US spy agencies, expand homeland security, and anti-terrorism measures and use them against the American right-wingers, US observers say.

A new independent 9/11-type Commission will be assigned to “investigate and report on the facts and causes relating to the January 6, 2021 domestic terrorist attack upon the United States Capitol Complex,” Pelosi wrote to her party fellows on Monday. According to CNN, the commission of this nature is typically established by a statute, passed by both chambers of the Congress and signed into law by the president.

9/11-Type Commission to Bolster Domestic Surveillance

The original 9/11 Commission was established on 27 November 2002 by President George W. Bush and the United States Congress with the aim “to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11 attacks.” The bipartisan body consisted of five Democrats and five Republicans and was chaired by former New Jersey Republican Governor Tom Kean.

​”The 9/11 Commission was supposed to be a bipartisan effort to find out what went wrong on 9/11,” says American author and political analyst William Stroock. “Today the Dems will use this ‘9/11’ style commission to stoke fears of Q, white nationalism, Trump and his supporters in general. This commission will not be independent at all and will not be interested in ascertaining facts, only in assigning blame to Republicans, conservatives and Trump supporters.”

​Nearly 20 years on, it’s clear that 9/11 has proven disastrous for the US in many ways, according to Strook. However, first and foremost it led to the creation of a “vast domestic spying apparatus with secret courts and gave the Feds vast new spying powers,” says the political analyst. Stroock suggests the Democrats “will want to give even more power to the domestic spying apparatus and turn it upon the right.”

Irreconcilable Contradictions in Democratic Party’s Policies

Meanwhile, the Biden administration plans to expand grants from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for studying and preventing “domestic violent extremism”, according to NBC News’ Friday report. Earlier, on 27 January, the DHS released its first-ever national terrorism bulletin warning about the looming threat of violent domestic extremism supposedly encouraged by the Capitol Hill protests.

​In the wake of the DC incident, the Democratic Party also pushed ahead with the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act (DTPA). Andrew McCarthy, former assistant United States attorney for the Southern District of New York, suggested in his January op-ed for National Review that the bill “is not about countering terrorism” but “weaving a political narrative.”

The legislation fell short of targeting jihadists, Antifa or Black Lives Matter militants, while focusing on white supremacists, “or, more specifically, Trump-inspired insurrectionists in the wake of the January 6 Capitol riot,” according to the lawyer.

“The double standard here is appalling,” says Stroock. “The Democrat Party has winked and nodded at the BLM/Antifa riots… The media even invented a new term to describe the orgy of looting and destruction, ‘mostly peaceful.’ To see them comparing the Capitol Hill riot to the 9/11 terrorist attacks is pretty rich.”

It’s not the only controversy haunting the Democrats, according to American independent journalist Max Parry: the Dems have previously supported the BLM’s “defund the police” movement and now they are advocating the expansion of homeland security and anti-terrorism measures.

“These are an inherent and irreconcilable contradictions,” Parry says. “Meanwhile, curiously absent is any mobilisation to demilitarise the police, which under the 1033 Program with the Pentagon has hyper militarised US domestic law enforcement even in small towns in the past few decades, yet numerous studies shows has not resulted in lower crime rates… So the irony of calling to ‘defund’ the police while trying to ram through legislation that would likely increase their counter-terrorism training and militarisation is incompatible.”

The movement to “defund the police” was well intentioned but potentially misguided where the legitimate concerns of citizens about the need to reform law enforcement could be used for other agendas, the journalist warns.

How GOP May Give Dems a Taste of Their Own Medicine

While cracking down on Trump supporters in the aftermath of the DC protests, the Dems have failed to convict former President Donald Trump over the alleged incitement of insurrection. As a result, Trump was once again acquitted in the Senate.

​”It seems they really thought they would convince 17 Republicans to crossover and vote to convict”, notes Stroock. “Only seven Republicans did so and they’re now in deep trouble with their voters back home. Several have already been censured by their state parties. The Democrats had a plan, a bad one, and had no idea what to do when the plan was foiled by reality.

Now that the Dems created a new legislative tool, the “snap impeachment,” the GOP could hypothetically fight back and give their political opponents a taste of their own medicine, the political analyst presumes.

“Given the way political gravity works, the Republicans will almost certainly win control of the House and Senate in 2022,” he says. “The Republican base will call for the GOP to impeach Joe Biden. Given the Dem’s own precedent, why not?”

Kamala Harris may also find herself in a heap of trouble given that she earlier tweeted support for a fund that bailed out rioters, according to Strook. Following Trump’s acquittal Republican Senator Lindsey Graham warned that Harris could be impeached because she “actually bailed out [BLM] rioters,” pointing to her support of a Minnesota-based bail fund.

“It’s quite a bit of a stretch to say that Harris could be impeached for asking to contribute to a fund that went towards bailing out activists, especially since there is no evidence she herself bailed anyone out,” Parry suggests. “However, that Graham made such threats does show how the prospect of impeachment is now being thrown around so loosely as a political football since the bar has been set so low by the Democrats who impeached Trump over a dubious phone conversation.”

While a lot may happen before the 2022 midterms, the GOP should jump at the opportunity to instrumentalise the potential 9/11-style Commission, argues Strook.

“The Republicans will (or should) approach this commission with great skepticism, turn the camera around and highlight the violence and racism of the left. This commission is a tremendous opportunity for the GOP,” the political analyst believes.

February 18, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance, Progressive Hypocrite | , | 1 Comment

After ban on Russian TV news Latvia now will criminalize watching ‘illegal’ cross border channels

RT | February 18, 2021

Tens of thousands of Russian-speaking Latvians will be turning down the volume and listening out for neighborhood snoopers after a new law came into force that will see viewers of unlicensed satellite TV fined just for tuning in.

Earlier this month, local media reported that the Seimas, the Baltic nation’s parliament, had adopted a bill in its final reading that will criminalize people for watching unauthorized broadcasts.

The networks that will be affected are said to include dozens of Russian television channels for which signals can be picked up from across the border. More than one in three Latvians speaks Russian at home, but dozens of broadcasters showing programs in the language have had their licenses revoked and been banned from the country’s airwaves since earlier this month.

Ivars Abolins, the chairman of Latvia’s National Council for Electronic Media (NEPLP), issued a statement backing the ban. “We have protected, are protecting, and will protect our information space,” he said. Regulators claim that talk show guests on the Russian-speaking channels have incited hatred and called for war in Europe.

The Russian Embassy in Riga issued a stern protest in response. In a post to its Facebook page it said that the policy was “in the best traditions of dictatorship.”

Riga’s move has likely been inspired by the fact that “Harmony,” the country’s main opposition party, is led by Russian speakers and has close links to the leftist Russian grouping, “Fair Russia.” Harmony won 23 of the 100 seats in the Seimas in the 2018 election.

“Violation of free speech? That’s just the start of it,” it added. “Apparently, in a free market environment, Latvian television channels cannot compete, even in the information space of their own country.”

However, under the old rules, while the channels themselves were prohibited, plucky viewers intent on getting a fix of their favorite shows in their native language did not fall foul of the law. Now though, consumers themselves are likely to face financial penalties if they are caught watching illicit programming. Lawmakers note that 62,000 households tuned into illegal satellite broadcasts in 2018, the most recent year for which figures were given.

The Reporters Without Borders NGO issued a warning last summer after a number of Baltic nations moved to ban several separate RT channels. The free speech watchdog said that “While it is legitimate to defend and promote independent and reliable news reporting,” it “regards these closures as a misuse of the EU sanctions policy.”

“Rather than banning media outlets on loose grounds and on a flimsy legal basis,” it argued, “countries can require all media to guarantee editorial independence and can then impose legitimate sanctions, subject to judicial control, when it is established that media outlets have not complied with their obligations.”

Ukraine has also recently come under fire from both Russian and European politicians for its decision to block and ban a series of Russian-language outlets, run and produced by Russian-speaking Ukrainians from within the country. One in three Ukrainians speaks Russian at home as a first language, but Kiev has claimed the channels amount to pro-Kremlin propaganda.

February 18, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Russophobia | , , , | Leave a comment